Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Oklahoma Bill Could Make Abortion Illegal

April 12, 2012 by  

Oklahoma Bill Could Make Abortion Illegal
If passed, a bill in Oklahoma could make abortion illegal.

A proposed law in Oklahoma could make abortions illegal in the State. The Personhood Act, which was passed by the State Senate in February with a 34-8 vote, defines the word “person” to include an embryo at the moment of conception.

The Personhood Act is expected to be passed through the House in a few weeks.

In order to be enacted, the bill must then be signed by Republican Governor and pro-life advocate Mary Fallin.

While the bill will not explicitly prohibit abortion, opponents are concerned that it will not only make abortion illegal, but that it will limit a couple’s options when planning a family. Doctors fear that if passed, the bill will make in vitro fertilization illegal as well as some forms of birth control.

Also, researchers who work with embryos are concerned about the implications of the bill.

Bryan Nash

Staff writer Bryan Nash has devoted much of his life to searching for the truth behind the lies that the masses never question. He is currently pursuing a Master's of Divinity and is the author of The Messiah's Misfits, Things Unseen and The Backpack Guide to Surviving the University. He has also been a regular contributor to the magazine Biblical Insights.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Oklahoma Bill Could Make Abortion Illegal”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Sirian

    Take a look at the bill: SB1433. Read through it and then determine on your own as to how infringing this may play out to be one way or the other. Bear in mind that this subject matter is one of the most highly prized political/social justice footballs to play with. And Lord will they continue to play with it for many years yet to come.

    • Robert Smith

      Well Sirian, you’ve finally come up with something I can agree with: “Bear in mind that this subject matter [abortion] is one of the most highly prized political/social justice footballs to play with.”

      Abortion has been the keystone of the Republican Southern Stragegy that separates catholic and other anti-abortion religious folks from common sense. An excellent example is the church’s commitment to health care via their hospitals, but they get hammered with the political issues to the point where that great work is threatened. Why? Because the extreme right in the Republican party wants to separate religious voters from their roots, and the abortion issue did it for them.

      Now it is so entrenched that it will never die as an issue and the extreme right will continue to grin and rub their palms together as the votes come in to protect “the babies.”

      Sheesh… Talk about sheeple. And remember, no matter how good the sheppard the flock gets sheered and eventually eaten. Sadly I think they march to their brutal alleged maker far too easily.


      • Brad

        Rob this may be true on this sole issue but you example od sheeple sounds like hundreds of issues on the far left.

      • Robert Smith

        Maybe on the left by your definition…

        But abortion is a core “value” for the right and often the ONLY issue that folks will follow. I can’t imagine any single issue that unites the left as the created issue of abortion with the Southern Stratey has succeeded for the extreme right.


      • oh oh

        “Extreme” by your definition, and your presumptuous “common sense” remark sounds like more elitist, arrogant progressive drivel. Everyone who confronts this issue must make a philosophical choice and, once made, the political paths diverge and, probably, irreconcilably. The founders envisioned the states as incubators of diverse ideas (like Oklahoma in this case), where such differences could be pursued without elitists dictating to the rest of us from on high. Thank goodness for federalism and the 10th Amendment. Viva diversity!

      • Robert Smith

        Form oh oh: “Thank goodness for federalism and the 10th Amendment. Viva diversity!”

        Yup. Those more than a dozen that have medical pot are good for freedom.

        Those states that have assisted suicide are good for freedom.

        Those states that have anti gun laws that don’t bother honest people are good for freedom.



    Until there is a man’s right to choose, I will never support abortion. I really think it should only be legal under certain circumstances such as Trisomy 18 or 13. Other than that, take responsibility for your actions.

    • Robert Smith

      CHACH proclaims: “Until there is a man’s right to choose, I will never support abortion.”

      It is your right to choose. You don’t HAVE to deposit your sacred sperm in her.

      Further, what’s going on isn’t going on inside of YOU. When YOU can decide to incubate what’s going on while it gestates THEN you can have a say. Until then it is HER body, not yours that is trapped by your wishes if you disagree with her inclination not to be pregnant.

      Now, may I suggest that you only have sex with women who have previously consented and agree with you that any pregnancy that occurs will go to term?

      Further, if someone doesn’t want to be a father they should only have sex with women who will guarantee that they will not go to term if they get pregnant. Either that or they can have a vasectomy or use condoms, again with the understanding and agreement with any woman you have sex with.


      • Thor

        ‘It is your right to choose. You don’t HAVE to deposit …’ blah, blah, blah…etc. and Amen! Once again RS, in your continual ‘alter-world’ paradigm, you fail to acknowledge the fact that women have a choice, too. They have absolute sovereignty over their own bodies and have had at their disposal from time immerorial a free and the only safe means of avoiding both pregnancy (and therefore conception) and STD’s–and did I mention that nature provides it free of charge? It’s called abstinance. Historically–until recent history–it was used quite frequently and effectively precisely because those old southern rightwing zealots encouraged its use and were supported by a bunch of old northern rightwing zealots. So, where does your philosophy fit in? From which camp have you been transmogrified?

      • Jay

        Proponents of abortion say that a woman should have the right to control her own body. This sounds reasonable. However, the fetus is not actually part of a woman’s body. The fetus is a separate individual, which has its own circulatory system and is composed of a unique DNA sequence compared to the mother. Regarding the claim that the fetus is part of the mother, Professor Peter Kreeft made the rather comical observation, “But in that
        case, every pregnant woman has four eyes and four feet, and half of all pregnant women have penises! Clearly, the absurd conclusion came from the false premise that the fetus is only part of the mother.”

        Even so, people do not automatically have the legal right to do anything they want with their own bodies. We cannot use our bodies to assault others. We can’t even take illegal drugs, even though it “only affects us.” The irony is that there are laws in many states that prevent a mother from using drugs or alcohol during pregnancy, although the same mother can kill the fetus at any time.


      • fastfood

        RE: “HER body”

        Then she can choose to keep “HER” legs closed. Humans are supposed to be the most intelligent animal spices, not uncontrollable dogs that cannot help but to mate and kill when nature tells them to. And with all the technology available there is simply no excuse for not preventing pregnancy.

        We need to learn to respect and protect innocent/defenseless fellow Human life simply because it is just that, Human life. We’ve managed to teach our own society that it is acceptable to destroy Human life simply because it is inconvenient as with unintended pregnancy or because some one pissed some one off as with death penalty, gang violence and terrorism. What we have now is a neurotic population obsessed with killing each other at the drop of a hat, adults killing adults, children killing children and every thing in between.

        In addition, due to abortion alone, we have 35 million fewer people in the work force and another 20 million others coming up right behind, who along with employers would be contributing to Social Security, Medicare and tax coffers at all levels of government. Mean while; we like to place ALL the blame on government.

        Then, we spend more money to dish out the death penalty when it costs less to keep capital criminals behind bars for life, even with the many “Club Fed” benefits we provide them with which they don’t deserve in the first place. Then there is our many pantywaist judges and juries who are so hell-bent on letting killers back on the streets so they can kill and mane again so we can spend yet more lives and money only to run them yet again and again through the same ill conceived system of so-called justice.

        We need to get our priorities straight before we completely destroy what we like to call “the greatest nation on earth.”

    • Doc Sarvis

      If ALL males took responsiblity of their actions i.e. took responsiblity for the children they sire then there would be FAR less need for the act of abortion.

      • Libertytrain

        No kidding. Men are such goofs at this it’s not even funny.

      • Jay

        Doc Sarvis says: If ALL males took responsiblity of their actions i.e. took responsiblity for the children they sire then there would be FAR less need for the act of abortion.

        The existence of social problems for women is not justification for another, even worse, evil. The social problems should be fixed, instead of killing the unborn. In recent years,
        many of the problems have been fixed, such as those preventing employers from firing or discriminating against pregnant women. Adoption is always an option for those women who don’t feel that they can take care of a child at this time in their lives. Many couples must wait for years to adopt because abortion has drastically reduced the number of children available for adoption. The “Safe Havens” program (state of California, and many other states) allows women to take their newborns to any emergency room or fire station within 72 hours of birth and drop them off – alleviating them of any further responsibility.

        Abortion proponents claim that every child should be wanted. However, being wanted is not a condition of the child, but of the adult. Is it fair to kill a child because of the attitude of an adult? Couples who are unable to conceive children of their own must often wait for years to adopt, since abortion has drastically reduced the number of adoptable children.

        Abortion proponents often justify abortion because of the claim that every child should be wanted. They also claim that wanted children are less likely to be abused than those who are “unwanted.” However, child abuse statistics show that since abortion was legalized in 1973, child abuse has risen dramatically, although over one million unwanted children are aborted every year. Maybe the callous attitude fostered by the prevalence of abortion have contributed to the child abuse problem? A recent study shows that those mothers who have a prior history of abortion, in fact, abuse their children more than those who do not have a history of abortion.

        Coleman, P. K., V. M. Rue, C. T. Coyle, C. D. Maxey. 2007. Induced Abortion and Child-Directed Aggression Among Mothers of Maltreated Children. The Internet Journal of Pediatrics and Neonatology: 6, No. 2.

  • Doc Sarvis

    There will be a lot more back alley deaths in OK.

    • CherokeeDan

      But there will be far fewer deaths in the abortion mills.

      • Robert Smith

        Are you suggesting that it’s OK to get a death sentence for not wanting to be pregnant?


    • Jay

      Doc Sarvis says: There will be a lot more back alley deaths in OK.

      Many of the ‘Benefits’ of abortion are based upon a distortion of the ‘facts’ and exaggerated claims of hardship incurred by a lack of the availability of legalized abortion.

      Proponents of legalized abortion claim that the criminalization of abortion would result in the deaths of thousands of woman yearly. However, after the advent of antibiotics, deaths from illegal abortions were at most in the hundreds.

      Proponents of legalized abortion claim that the criminalization of abortion would result in the deaths of thousands of woman yearly. However, the year before abortion was legalized, the number of deaths due to illegal abortions was 41, which was not markedly more than the number of deaths from legal abortions.

      Abortion proponents cite the “hard cases” of abortion as justification for the requirement for legalized abortion. However, these “hard cases” represent only 5% of all abortions performed in the United States. Any attempts to limit legalized abortion to these “hard cases” is completely opposed by abortion proponents, although they are constantly citing only these cases.

      The “Hard” Cases

      1. Abortion must be available for: cases of rape or incest Represent only 1% of all cases.

      2. Cases of fetal abnormalities Represent only 1% of all cases.

      3. Mother’s health is at risk Represents only 3% of all cases.
      The Alan Guttmacher Institute (

    • fastfood

      So-called “back alley” deaths due to abortions was an irresponsible joke in 1973 and still is today. As with other left-wing nut lies, repeat it often enough and loud enough, eventually people will begin believing and helping to propagate it.

  • Chester

    Well, gentlemen, are you prepared to have the nasturbation police knocking on your door saying you are having too many wet dreams? If this personhood thing is passed and signed, then ujpheld by the courts, it is just a short step to saying each egg and each sperm is a potential person, and thus must only be lost in the most dire of circumstances. Oh, and that will mandate outlawing condoms and all other forms of contraceptives, regardless of the danger to either potential paren’t’s life. Oh, and don’t you know, all gay and lesbian activities will be illegal under the same idea.

  • Brad

    Chester gay and lesbian activities should be against the law, especialy their gross effection in public areas

    • eddie47d

      I’ll take the Liberal “law” of personal choice over the draconian “law” of Conservatives who want to control every aspect of ones sexual activities. Don’t worry Brad I had an operation 15 years ago that rendered me harmless to the women of the world. LOL. My wife and I will be married 40 years come August and I have never cheated on her and we get along splendidly. In case you are waiting with baited breath in knocking me “up”. I’ll remind you all of what R- Sen Bennett of Utah proposed about 5 years ago. He said in his bill that all women who ovulate must report the egg loss to the police and be subject to a sexual examine to determine whether it was a normal process or if the women was prepared to have an abortion. To say Conservative won’t go to extremes is an understatement. Maybe the Republican sponsered bill in the Dakotas (4 years ago) is another sign in how far the right will go. The legal killing of any abortion doctor.

      • Thor

        Gosh, ed, guess I owe you an apology. Judging from some of your past arguments I had you pegged for pre-pubescent and undecided. My bad. As usual, your characterization of the truth and propinquity to a self-indulgent Eros dull you vision and hide the facts in selective disclosure–typical liberal progressive zealousness. It is no wonder you concentrate so breathlessly on conservative, rightwing extremists so. It balances your own ego. Nicely done.

      • eddie47d

        Which extremist group has you in their back pocket Thor?

      • eddie47d

        Why thank you Thor…chuckle!

    • Robert Smith

      Brad says: “gay and lesbian activities should be against the law, ”

      Really? What do gays do that straight folks don’t do much more of?


      • Jay


      • Jazzabelle

        Have sex with someone of their own gender?

        (I wasn’t gonna state the obvious, but someone already got it wrong, so….)

      • Robert Smith

        Jpy questioned: “Procreate?”

        Are you suggesting that older women and injured war vets shouldn’t marry?


      • Jay

        Are you suggesting that all your idiotic questions merit a response?

  • http://PersonalLibertyAlerts Vorna

    Having read proposed bill, I see only a provision for the protection of the unborn person. In vitro fertilization, medically prescribed treatment of ectopic pregnancy, disposal of and use for stem cell research of sperm and unfertilized eggs are protected, even the administration of the “morning after” pill and contraceptives are protected, specifically. No mention is made of homosexual relationships, nor should it be, since such relationships cannot procreate. As to the issue of elective abortion- you have the option to prevent an unwanted pregnancy via contraception, if you choose not to do so- why should another person (be they unborn or otherwise) be put to death for your convenience? You have the “right” to make choices for your life, and a voice to state those rights. Their lack of a voice does not negate the fact of those same rights- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My congratulations to OK for setting a precedence. Yes, Rob, I will follow my Shepherd- eyes open, heart willing, come what may!

    • Tim L.

      By all means, follow your Shepherd but don’t be so arrogant as to expect the rest of us to follow.

      • http://PersonalLibertyAlerts Vorna

        You have that choice… let’s be sure that the unborn does too.

    • Robert Smith

      From Vorna: “, if you choose not to do so- why should another person (be they unborn or otherwise) be put to death for your convenience? ”

      Really? Do you really believe that?

      Let me ask you. If someone came to your door, no no… better yet, if someone came into your house to participate in a party what would you do if they decided to stay? What if I came to the door and announced that because they want to stay in your house YOU must supply them with all they need including food, water, air, and shelter. What would you do with that person? MOF, what about the third ammendment? Not necessarily a soldger but a ward of the government being forced upon you in your home?

      No fair, right. Now let’s go to the next step… They are gonna put their hands on your person and declare that YOU must provide ALL for another person. They aren’t just inside your home but they are inside YOU.

      Fun huh? I’ll bet you would do everything you can to get ‘em out, including as I’ve seen a bunch of around this forum, shooting an intruder.


      • http://PersonalLibertyAlerts Vorna

        Yes, Rob. I do believe that. Your analogy does not work. A baby does not “appear” in your body. There are many methods to prevent unwanted pregnancy, Convenience is not the subjection of your will, but the indulgence of it. Having worked in foster care, a home for the developmentally disabled, and nursing homes; and having raised four children to adulthood, I think I have a fairly good grasp of how life choices can affect others as well as ourselves.

        I also believe in charity; not just the giving of money, etc. to the poor, but love- the root meaning of charity. “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the Truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” As a human being, I am not perfect, but my Shepherd is. I also believe that He is the Creator of all life- yours and mine too. Thankfully, my mother and yours accepted our entrance into their lives. Regardless of how our lives have been to this point, what we do with our lives from this point on is our choice.

      • carrobin

        I have no problem with people who are against abortion. My problem is with the people who want to make sure nobody can have an abortion. I don’t consider a fetus “a person” with rights; the woman in whose body the fetus is growing is the person with rights. (A good friend of mine hated his mother for not aborting him, allowing him to be born with several genetic diseases. He tried to shoot himself via “Russian roulette” three times, since as a Catholic he felt that wasn’t really suicide. But he died of diabetes and some other causes at the age of 54. RIP, Peter.)

      • Jay

        Viability (the point when an unborn baby could survive outside of the womb) is an arbitrary concept. Why isn’t personhood associated with heartbeat (begins just 21 days after conception), or brainwaves (43 days after conception), or something else? The actual point of viability constantly changes because it depends on technology, not on the unborn baby.

        Based on the same viability logic, many “born” people are not viable because they cannot survive on their own without the aid of others. Should we kill them too?

    • Robert Smith

      Vorna, you are just a field day of silly “arguments” against abortion. Let’s watch again: “Their lack of a voice does not negate the fact of those same rights- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

      How about eternal happiness for the fetus? Don’t they go to heaven when they are aborted? No sin. JC took that out of the game when he got crossed up.

      So, for anyon who is involved in an abortion they are doing the fetus a favor by getting them into heaven before they have had a chance to sin! Such a deal… Special this week and this week only! Abortions to send your kid to heaven without having to go through the enterance exam of born life. Your ticket is punched and you get to go straight to heaven for eternal happiness.

      Now eternal happiness I can endorse for any “person.” Why don’t you? Are you opposed to “people” going to heaven?


      • Tyler

        Rob I’d say your “arguments” are the silly ones. Your only point to come back with is that you support sending people to enternal happiness before they have a chance to sin? That’s childish for asking why is Verona opposed to to “people” going to heaven…….. Because it’s not our decision to choose for someone else when they go to heaven. The baby doesn’t have a say in whether or not they get to live a long full life. That’s the voice Verona is speaking about. You obviously have your opinion, they deserve one too but is ripped and cut from them in a horrible gruesome fashion.

      • Jazzabelle

        Rob, you sound like that pseudo-religious psycho who drowned her 5 kids in a bathtub before they could reach the “age of accountability” and maybe be damned. Do you support her actions?

      • Jay

        Jazzabelle, it wouldn’t surprise me if Rob had a picture of her over his bed!

    • GregS

      Well said, Vorna!

    • Tim L.

      Vorna, the problem we have is that there are over 7 billion people on this planet. We don’t need more, and we certainly don’t need any more unwanted children. To bring an unwanted child into this world is cruel to all concerned. If you are against contraceptives and abortion then don’t employ them, but have the decency to let others decide the right course of action for themselves.

      • Tyler

        Sorry I keep commenting on Vorna’s responses but oh well. .

        Tim – Who are you or anyone else in this world to decide that unwanted babies should be killed. There are hundreds if not thousands of wanting mothers out there who can’t have children of their own and would love this child…… If you think that we are over populated, it’s simple, stop having sex if you are’t responsible enough or prepared for the chance of having a baby. It’s selfish immature people making these decisions to have sex then not wanting to live with the consequences. That is what makes us adults. Should we follow communist China on how they handle their over poplulation issues? That sure sounds like what you’re talking about. This is a society that wants to do what feels good now, and not worry about what happens later.

      • Tim L.

        Once again you miss the point. If you truly are an adult, don’t try to impose your fundamentalism on others. If the fetus isn’t growing in your body, then it is none of your business.

        • Tyler

          Tim L – I don’t think I’m missing the point at all. I do not consider it as pushing my fundamentalism on anyone as more of commen sense and being a mature adult.

          I do find it my responsibility to protect and stand up for the weak, innocent, and those who cannot speak for themselves. Calling a fetus to make it easier for someone to abort doesn’t not take away from the fact that it is a baby that is being killed.

      • JimH

        TimL, You miss the point. When the baby is born and some kills him or her society has something to say about it. Does someone need a bellybutton to be protected under the law? Yes it is our business.

      • Tim L.

        I don’t believe anyone said anything about killing a child that has been born.

      • http://PersonalLibertyAlerts Vorna

        I have nothing against contraception. As to children being unwanted, there are many waiting to adopt “unwanted infants.” The population of the world is not the issue… even Dr.Seuss knows, “A person is a person, no matter how small.”

      • JimH

        Tim, That is the point. If it’s our (societies) business to protect people from being killed by other people after they are born, why is it such a stretch to protect a human still in the womb?

      • Bill

        reduce the population naturally, Keep it to your own hand until you can take responsibility for your own actions.

      • Jay

        Abortion is often said to be a means to prevent over-population. Abortion proponents claim that those countries that outlaw abortion have very high birth rates. They often fail to point out that those countries are often composed of Roman Catholic populations, which are not allowed to use birth control measures.

        Even those that are not Roman Catholic often lack access to birth control, and generally have limited availability of educational programs. It has been pointed out that other bad events, such as war, disease, and famine can curb population growth. Should we condone those things as well?

  • Tyler

    Rob your very creative example of someone coming into your home or party, then staying is the dumbest example I’ve ever heard. NO ONE is forcing you to have sex and to be ingnorant enough to get pregnant. Obviously not you becuase I’m pretty sure you’re a man but a woman. Don’t get pregnant if you’re not ready to support, feed and carry the baby. If you don’t want the baby, there are so many options out there other than killing it.

    “Shooting an intruder” are you serious!!! That is how you would describe an unborn baby? You’re sick and it’s people like you that this country is so messed up. People like you like playing like their adults but when something unexpected happens like getting pregnant, they don’t want the adult responsibility of raising the child. Can’t have it both ways. Act like a grown up, don’t be a little bitch about it because it’s inconvenient.

    • carrobin

      Guess you never heard of rape. Or child abuse (does a 14-year-old really have a lot of power to say no to an adult?) But that’s beside the point. It’s the woman with the fetus who should choose, nobody else.

      • Tyler

        Is giving the baby up for adoption a worse option than just killing it? There are plenty of people that would take that baby, love it as their own, and raise it so that he/she has a choice to become someone.

      • Jay

        Rape is a horrible crime, and a pregnancy resulting from rape must be a horrible burden to any woman. However, does this give her the right to kill the embryo? How is an embryo concieved by rape any different than an embryo concieved through loving, consentual sex? Obviously, it is no different, and the balance of rights involved in the pregnancy is no different. The embryo is not responsible for his or her father’s crimes, and should not
        be punished for them.

      • Bill

        and that choice should be make before fertilization. We are not like the plants and animals in the wild. We have the capacity to reason and to thing about the consequences of our actions. .

      • Jay

        carrobin says: Guess you never heard of rape. Or child abuse (does a 14-year-old really have a lot of power to say no to an adult?) But that’s beside the point. It’s the woman with the fetus who should choose, nobody else.

        Less than 1% of all abortions are due to rape or incest. Furthermore, since conception doesn’t occur immediately after intercourse, pregnancy can be prevented in nearly all rape cases by medical treatments including the morning after pill.

        Nearly all the women interviewed in a recent survey said they regretted aborting the
        babies conceived via rape or incest. Of those giving an opinion, more than 90 percent said they would discourage other victims of sexual violence from having an abortion.

        Finally, if you found out today that your biological father had raped your mother, would you feel you no longer had a right to live?

  • B. Holmes

    When conversation of abortion emerges, there seems to be the idea that there is a baby at conception…or else why would anyone want to abort whatever else it is, besidest a baby? It used to be jokingly called a “watermelon”. Why abort a watermelon? Maybe they really think it truly is a baby?

    • Thor

      What? You think ‘it’ would turn into anything besides a baby if you chose not to abort it? How scientific is that? If you think this is a silly conversation, you should have paid attention pre-Roe v. Wade, when even scientists and secular ethicists were scrambling around for new definitions for ‘life’ and ‘personhood’ to make the Roe decision ethically and morally acceptable.

    • Jay

      “It’s merely a blob of cells,” an abortion doctor will often tell a pregnant mother to ease her mind before proceeding with an abortion. More sensitive practitioners will refer to the unborn as a fetus, an embryo, a blastocyst or a zygote. They are all easier words to kill than “baby.” But if a fetus can be a legal heir to a million-dollar fortune and have property listed in its name, why doesn’t the Constitution protect it from abortion? Technically, an
      Unborn in the USA is not considered a “person.” Once the concept of personhood is ever established, the fetus’ right to life would be guaranteed specifically by the Fourteenth Amendment, and the pro-choice case for legalized abortion would collapse!

      • Bill

        an abortion doctor also has a “blob” of cells between the ears. these cells have not matured to the extent they are able to distinguish right from wrong. Perhaps if this blob of cells were excised there would be far fewer crimes against humanity.

  • Neil Swan

    The politicians in Oaklahoma must be religious right. This is not sensible it’s just religious right. They were told when they wanted to pass a law against Shari law, that they didn’t have to because the constitution is against religious law. So why are they trying to go against the constitution.


    • JimH

      Neil, Even though many religious people are pro-life, doesn’t make it an exclusively religious issue.
      Many religious rules, the 10 commandments for example, and secular law coincide with each other.
      The law is not unconstitutional.

      • Neil Swan

        The religious commandments like the first three are not laws.
        When 2 cells come together at conception the fact that they are a person is only a religious concept.


      • JimH

        Niel, I didn’t mean all 10. The ones about stealing, killing, Bearing false wittness(perjury).
        But you know that. You got the point even though you don’t want to admit it. Many of the religious and secular laws coincide.
        When do unreligious people think a human becomes a human? Is what religious people believe wrong just because it is a religious belief?
        To repeat myself not all pro-life people are religious. It isn’t exclusive to religius people.
        It isn’t unconstitutional because of religion.

      • Jay

        The truth is that the pro-life stance does not depend on religion. The logical case for life is built entirely upon premises grounded in the Constitution and science. These premises lead to the pair of conclusions that form the crux of the pro-life argument. The first is that the only relevant question in the debate over the legality of abortion is whether or not the fetus should be considered a human person. If the fetus is a human
        person then abortion should be illegal; if the fetus is not a human person then abortion should be legal. The second is that the fetus should be considered a human person. Together these statements comprise the pro-life conviction that abortion should be illegal.

        We derive the first conclusion from the Constitution. Foremost in the famous triptych of rights enshrined in the Fifth Amendment is the right to life: “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The preeminence of the right of an innocent human person to life remains even when it comes in conflict with other “rights” (whether legally extant or alleged) such as a right to comfort or a right to a career of choice, or with various social priorities such as population control.

        It is important to emphasize this point because pro-choicers regularly justify legalized abortion on the grounds of “women’s rights”. However important it may be to safeguard the freedom of all citizens to pursue a lifestyle of their choice, this freedom cannot be so unlimited that it takes precedence over the innocent’s right to life.

        Even Harry Blackmun, the very justice who penned the Roe v. Wade decision, admitted as much when he wrote: “If this suggestion of [fetal] personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by [the Constitution].” Here Blackmun is essentially endorsing the first pillar of the pro-life position: the debate over abortion’s legality hinges on the question of fetal personhood.

        Common sense agrees. If the fetus is deemed not to be a human person then even pro-lifers would support abortion on demand. But if a woman’s toddler is preventing her from pursuing her career does she have the right to kill him? Of course not. Why? Because the toddler is a person whose right to life takes precedence over his parent’s freedom to pursue the career or lifestyle of her choice. The same logic applies if the fetus should be considered a person.

        The debate over the legality of abortion, then, reduces to the question of fetal personhood, and the most reasonable definition of a person is a living human organism. Additional constraints on this definition based on race, age, or level of dependency inevitably reduce to discrimination. As a handbook published by Feminists for Life puts it, “If we take any living member of the species homo sapiens and put them outside the realm of legal protection, we undercut the case against discrimination for everyone else.”

        Science is clear that a human fetus is a living member of the species homo sapiens. Individually, a sperm and an egg are living cells; but when they are fused together they acquire the characteristics (growth, maintenance of homeostasis, etc.) that biology assigns to an independent living organism. Hence it is the moment of conception that marks the beginning of a new human organism and therefore the beginning of personhood and the rights that come with it.

        Both pillars of the pro-life thesis that abortion should be illegal are thus vindicated solely on the authority of science and the Constitution. Not once in this article have I appealed to the Bible or the Qur’an; nowhere have the words “God” or “soul” appeared.

      • GregS

        Neil Swan says:

        “When 2 cells come together at conception the fact that they are a person is only a religious concept.”

        When the sperm and the egg come together, a LIVING HUMAN ORGANISM is created. This is a SCIENTIFIC FACT, not a “religious concept.” Any medical textbook will tell you this. Furthermore, there are atheists who are pro-life.

        All living human organisms deserve the RIGHT TO LIFE, as is guaranteed in our Constitution.

    • GregS

      Neil Swan says:

      “The politicians in Oaklahoma must be religious right. This is not sensible it’s just religious right.”

      The abortion issue is NOT a religious issue. It’s a HUMAN LIFE issue. There are atheists who are pro-life.

  • Jay

    By Dr. Bernard Nathanson

    I am personally responsible for 75,000 abortions. This legitimises my credentials
    to speak to you with some authority on the issue. I was one of the founders of the
    National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S. in 1968. A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to issue the decision which legalised abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth. How did we do this? It is important to understand the tactics involved because these tactics have been used throughout the western world with one permutation or another, in order to change abortion law.


    We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal enlightened, sophisticated one. Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60% of Americans were in favour of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that
    legalising abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then
    be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of
    birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalisation.


    We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its “socially backward ideas” and
    picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was
    played endlessly. We fed the media such lies as “we all know that opposition to abortion comes from the hierarchy and not from most Catholics” and “Polls prove time and again that most Catholics want abortion law reform”. And the media drum-fired all this into the American people, persuading them that anyone opposing permissive abortion must be under the influence of the Catholic hierarchy and that Catholics in favour of abortion are enlightened and forward-looking. An inference of this tactic was that there were no non- Catholic groups opposing abortion. The fact that other Christian as well as non-Christian religions were {and still are) monolithically opposed to abortion was constantly suppressed, along with pro-life atheists’ opinions.


    I am often asked what made me change my mind. How did I change from prominent abortionist to pro-life advocate? In 1973, I became director of obstetrics of a large hospital in New York City and had to set up a prenatal research unit, just at the start of a great new technology which we now use every day to study the foetus in the womb. A favourite pro- abortion tactic is to insist that the definition of when life begins is impossible; that the question is a theological or moral or philosophical one, anything but a scientific one. Foetology makes it undeniably evident that life begins at conception and requires all the protection and safeguards that any of us enjoy. Why, you may well ask, do some American doctors who are privy to the findings of foetology, discredit themselves by carrying out abortions? Simple arithmetic at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion. It is clear that permissive abortion is purposeful destruction of what is undeniably human life. It is an impermissible act of deadly violence. One must concede that unplanned pregnancy is a wrenchingly difficult dilemma, but to look for its solution in a deliberate act of destruction is to trash the vast resourcefulness of human ingenuity, and to surrender the public weal to the classic utilitarian answer to social problems.


    Although I am not a formal religionist, I believe with all my heart that there is a
    divinity of existence which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this
    infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.

    [Dr. Nathanson has since converted to Catholicism, being baptised in 1996.]

    • Neil Swan

      The cells that perform conception are alive too, but you are not a person until you are born.
      If you don’t want abortion don’t get it.


      • Jay

        Define person.

      • Jay

        The Official Senate report on Senate Bill 158, the “Human Life Bill”, summarised the issue this way: “Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological,
        and scientific writings.”

        Everything that determines the individuality and originality of a person is established at conception. The first single cell contains the entire genetic blueprint in all its complexity.

        The heart starts beating between 18 and 25 days.

        Electrical brainwaves have been recorded at 43 days on an EEG. If the absence of a brainwave indicates death, why will pro-abortionists not accept that the presence of a brainwave is a confirmation of life?

        The brain and all body systems are present by 8 weeks and functioning a month later.

        At 8 weeks, the baby will wake and sleep, make a fist, suck his thumb, and get hiccups.

        At the end of 9 weeks, the baby has his own unique finger prints.

        At 11-12 weeks, the baby is sensative to heat, touch, light and noise. All body systems are working. He weighs about 28g and is 6-7.5 cm long.

        He/she is fully developed before his mother’s pregnancy is even noticeable. This is the age of baby, that the government is saying can be killed for any reason whatsoever, without a waiting period for the mother to consider her decision.

        From conception, the new person conceived is as deserving of the full protection of the law as any other person.

        Gee Neil, sounds like a person to me. As to your last statement; ” If you don’t want abortion don’t get it”. What you are really saying; ” If you don’t want to commit murder, then dont”!

  • Jay

    Can anyone answer this question;

    If abortion is not murder, and a fetus is not considered a person until born/birthed; why then, if the mother is killed through murder, is it considered a double homicide? Anyone?

    • Libertytrain

      Jay I’ve posted that question a couple times – not even rob has touched it to date

    • Tim L.

      This is nothing more that the manipulation of the law in order to cater to the fanatical religious crowd: The fetus huggers. If a person doesn’t want an abortion, no one is forceing them to get one. I just wish that the folks who have so much love for fetuses could find it within their good, Christian hearts to extend some of that love and concern to the child once it is born, but you really don’t see much of that.

      • GregS

        Tim L. says:

        “This is nothing more that the manipulation of the law in order to cater to the fanatical religious crowd: The fetus huggers.”

        The abortion issue is NOT a religious issue. It’s a HUMAN LIFE issue. There are atheists who are pro-life.

      • Jay

        Tim: This is nothing more that the manipulation of the law in order to cater to the fanatical religious crowd: The fetus huggers.

        Really? Would you say the same of laws regarding human-rights? Let’s see; how about laws regarding homosexuals, women, minorities, workers, illegal alliens, blacks? Was that
        nothing more then the manipulation of the law in order to cater to the fanatical, and degenerate progressive crowd; you know, scrotum and a-hole lovers?

        Tim: If a person doesn’t want an abortion, no one is forceing them to get one.

        What you are really saying; If a person wants to commit murder, they should be restrained! But you cannot say it, because you suffer from a condition known as;

        ABORTIONITE BLIND SPOT: The defect in the conscience of Abortionites resulting from the practice of abortionthink such that the target population of the particular Abortionite sect has ceased to exist in the Abortionite’s mind as human persons. It is for this reason that Abortionites just don’t get it when it comes to understanding oppostion to their sacraments (crimes).

        Tim:I just wish that the folks who have so much love for fetuses could find it within their good, Christian hearts to extend some of that love and concern to the child once it is born,

        There are folks from all walks of life, political and religious spectrum, who place a great deal of value on the life growing inside of a mother to be. Sadly you are not part of this group, for whatever reason. Possible reasons; Incapable of feeling love, perhaps, a psychological, or anatomical disfunction, perhaps, or maybe suffering from child-abuse? Who knows for sure, and i can only guess. But one things for sure; you are one sick individual.

        Tim: but you really don’t see much of that.

        Where do you live? I see plenty of of that! And even if there weren’t that much; absence of, or minimal display of; beholding the human as sacred, and the image of his Creator, should not be the argument used to legislate murder. And this is where you come in Tim; who do you think you are? A blob of jelly, a product of evilution, are you an animal? Based on your view of the un-born, and your eagerness to extinguish the life; i’d say, you are dead!

  • Neil Swan

    Your not a person until you can live outside the womb.


    • Jay

      So, conversly then; if you cannot, live outside the womb, then you are not a person?

  • Jay


    ABC: Abortionite Broadcasting Company. A communications network peopled by Abortionites who censor and slant news and information to promote the Birthist Abortionite agenda.

    ABLE-IST: An individual who believes in aborting the rights of others, sometimes to the point of justifying their destruction, on the basis of their abilities or handicaps. A member of the Utilitarianist sect of Abortionism. See also UTILITARIANIST and FUNCTIONALIST.

    ABORTION: A euphemism used to describe the poisoning or live dismemberment of prenatal children without benefit of anesthesia. Frequently used in this glossary to include any abrogation of human rights under the philosophy of Abortionism. In this context it is a sacrament of the cult of Abortionism.

    ABORTION CLINIC (or KLINIK): A temple of the Birthist sect of the Abortionite cult wherein their sacrament of prenatal human sacrifice is practiced.

    ABORTIONISM: The world’s oldest and most destructive idolatrous cult whose central dogma holds that human rights are conditionally granted or denied to powerless people by powerful people based on whatever criteria the powerful choose to recognize. Those who do not meet the Abortionite criteria for inclusion may have their rights summarily aborted through Abortionite sacraments (crimes) at any time. The criteria, which define the various sects of the cult (Racist, Sexist, Birthist, Creedist, Classist, Utilitarianist, etc.), may include ethnicity, sex, birth, religion, social or economic class, and abilities. The term “Abortionism” also refers to the underlying philosophy of the cult.

    ABORTIONIST: An unethical physician who has chosen to abandon the ethical norms of the medical profession and prostitute his or her medical skills to destroy prenatal human life.

    ABORTIONITE: Of or pertaining to the cult of Abortionism. Also, a member of any sect of the cult of Abortionism.

    ABORTIONITE BLIND SPOT: The defect in the conscience of Abortionites resulting from the practice of abortionthink such that the target population of the particular Abortionite sect has ceased to exist in the Abortionite’s mind as human persons. It is for this reason that Abortionites just don’t get it when it comes to understanding oppostion to their sacraments (crimes).

    ABORTIONITE CLIFF: A metaphorical ethical precipice over which a society will plummet when it abandons the high moral plateau in which all human life is protected unconditionally. Often more generously described as a slippery slope. American society has been in free fall over this precipice since Roe v. Wade.

    ABORTIONITE KLANSMEN: Abortionites, especially those of the Birthist sect, who will continue to practice their sacraments even after they have been outlawed, because they have been taught by experience that they have a right to do so. The Ku Klux Klan is the best known example, although they are members of the Racist sect. Similarly, Birthist Abortionites have made plans to continue their sacrament of prenatal child-killing underground should the protection of law be restored to prenatal children.

    ABORTIONITE SACRAMENT: The abortion of a fundamental human right by a member of the cult of Abortionism when committed against a member of a target population peculiar to his or her sect. Commonly understood among non-Abortionites to be a crime.

    ABORTIONITE SECT: One of the subdivisions of the cult of Abortionism which can be identified by the criteria by which it targets human populations for exclusion from the human community and ultimately for abortion of their fundamental human rights. The major Abortionite sects include Racist, Sexist, Birthist, Classist, Creedist and Utilitarianist. There is much overlap among them, the most highly developed Abortionites being convinced that exclusion should apply to anyone not like themselves.

    ABORTIONITE SYNDROME: The full range of characteristics common to practicing Abortionites including mastery of abortionthink, fluency in Abortionspeak and possession of a fully developed Abortionite blind spot. Individuals who possess these skills are capable of looking at piles of bodies, whether prenatal children or death camp victims stacked in ovens, and not see human beings.

    ABORTIONITE SYNOD: An hypothetical conference of representatives of all Abortionite sects which could never actually be held due to their proclivity for aborting each other.

    ABORTIONITE TEMPLE: A facility in which Abortionite sacraments and other forms of Abortionite worship and religious formation are practiced. A number of temples were operated secretly in Europe by the Racist sect in the 1930′s and 1940′s but the Birthist sect openly operates many temples in many countries today. See also ABORTUARY.

    ABORTIONMONGER: An Abortionite, especially one of the Birthist sect, for whom the lives of prenatal children or other target populations have no significance at all. One who enthusiastically promotes abortion as a positive solution for a multitude of problems.

    ABORTION RIGHTS: An oxymoron used by Birthist Abortionites, abortionmongers, necrochoicers and the like to describe and defend a state of anarchy with respect to protecting the lives of prenatal children and abuses of freedom that destroy human lives both prenatally and postnatally. See also CHILD KILLING PRIVILEGES.

    ABORTION RITES: Actions surrounding the sacrifice of prenatal children or other target populations to Abortionite idols, to include any pre-mortem examinations, usually conducted in an Abortionite temple by the Birthist sect. Suggested usage in preference to the oxymoron “abortion rights”.

    ABORTION RITUALS: A suggested term to substitute for “abortion rites”, especially in oral communication, to avoid any confusion with the oxymoron “abortion rights”. Its description of prenatal child-killing as human sacrifice to the idols our nation has come to worship should be emphasized. See also ABORTION RITES.

    ABORTIONSPEAK: A dialect of Orwell’s Newspeak used by Abortionites to deny the realities of their sacraments (murder, slavery, etc.) and thereby enable doublethink. Used extensively in present day America by the Birthist sect to confuse the unconverted population and thereby confound effective action against their sacrament of child-killing. Very effective for necropimping.

    ABORTIONTHINK: Doublethink with respect to the value of life, holding in the case of the Birthist sect of Abortionism that prenatal life is both inviolable under the ethic of sanctity of life and also disposable at any time for any reason. Also, the rationalizing process of devaluing the life of another sufficiently to justify destroying that life with little or no remorse based on any of the Abortionite criteria which define the various sects.

    ABORTOMANIA: A form of insanity characterized by great excitement and enthusiasm for abortion. Common among abortionmongers and other Abortionites, especially those of the Birthist sect, after the process of abortionthink has run its full course.

    ABORTOPHILIA: Love of abortion. A warm, even passionate emotional attachment to abortion, especially as practiced by the Birthist sect, when it is seen as a wonderful, life-enhancing and essential option in life. Characteristic of abortionmongers and other Birthist Abortionites.

    ABORTUARY: A facility in which prenatal human sacrifice is practiced. A temple of the Birthist sect of Abortionism wherein this sacrament takes place. See also ABORTIONITE TEMPLE.

    ACLU: The foremost missionary organization of Abortionism and related cults such as Evangelical Paganism. Variously known as Atheists, Communists and Liars Unscrupulous; Anti-Christian Litigation Union and Abortionite Confraternity of Litigious Ultra-Leftists. An organization devoted to destroying the moral foundations of American society by eradicating the influence of religion from public life.

    AMNIOCENTESIS: A medical procedure used to diagnose problems in prenatal children by analyzing material sampled from the amniotic fluid. Advocated as part of a search and destroy policy by eugenicists and other necrochoicers.

    ANIMALIST: An individual who believes that many if not all animal species have an equal claim to the recognition and protection of human society. Curiously, Animalists are frequently Birthist Abortionites who recognize few or no such claims for prenatal human children. This is due to their primary Abortionite affiliation with the Sentiencist sect. See also SENTIENCIST.

    ANTI-ABORTION: A negative label adopted by the necromedia to refer to pro-lifers, sometimes even applied in coverage of euthanasia to promote the desired negative image of pro-lifers as busybodies and meddlers in private matters. Contrast with the necromedia’s use of necrochoicers’ preferred euphemisms for themselves.

    ANTI-CHOICE: The preferred descriptor of Birthist Abortionites, abortionmongers, necrochoicers and the like for pro-lifers and others who oppose the administering of Abortionite sacraments. Its foolishness makes perfect sense to persons with fully developed Abortionite blind spots who are incapable of understanding that the only thing that makes any Abortionite sacrament unacceptable is the nature of the choice.

    • Tim L.

      Jay. I support your right to never have an abortion.

      • JimH

        TimL, I am against abortion and won’t have on. ( Or the woman I may imprgnate I should say.)
        I am also against rape and will not rape any one. But according to your way of thinking if someone else rapes it shouldn”t be any of or business.
        Your logic doesn’t work.

      • Tim L.

        Jim, I think you’re the one who is logically challenged. Just to make it clear to you, if that is at all possible, I think rapists should get the death penalty. I dont believe a woman who has been raped should be forbidden to have an abortion: It is her decision. I would go out of my way anytime to assist a rape victim in anyway that I could. Furthermore, I fully support a woman’s right to make a choice when it comes to her body. After all if you can’t trust a woman with a choice, how can you trust her with a child?

      • JimH

        So help me out here Tim. If it’s not our business if a Mother is choosing to kill her own baby, then we it is our own business when someone chooses to rape.
        Is that what you are saying? So please help my challenged logic
        It seems you want to pick and choose what to protect and defend.
        So is it the just don’t do it logic, or the just don’t do it on some things?

      • Jay

        Tim, i will never support your right to murder.

  • BillWhit

    People have for too long taken God’s little Angels and tossed them in the dumpster when they should be taking responsibility for their actions. Praise God this is happening. I pray it passes in my homestate of Oklahoma.

  • Tim L.

    Religion is like a penis: It’s fine to have one and it’s fine to be proud of it, but please have the decency to not whip it out in public and start swinging it around. And please stop trying to shove it down everyone else’s throat.

    • GregS

      As long as you keep dragging religion into this, I will repeat:

      Abortion is NOT a religious issue. It’s a HUMAN LIFE issue. There are atheists who are pro-life.

    • JimH

      [offensive post removed]

      • JimH

        What I said is no more offensive than Tims penis reference. Especially the shove it down everyone elses throat part.
        Oh Tim ye of “little” faith.

    • Jay

      Tim: Religion is like a penis: It’s fine to have one and it’s fine to be proud of it, but please have the decency to not whip it out in public and start swinging it around. And please stop trying to shove it down everyone else’s throat.

      Hmm, sounds like penis envy. Tell you what Tim; we’ll stop waving our penises around, if you stop waving that scalpel around the un-born. I know you’re proud of that scalpel, but please, not around babies. Btw, its not a medical-proceedure, or abortion; its MURDER!!!

      58 million murders to date. No doubt, you left-wing, progressive, satanic- wackos are proud of all the murders you’ve commited. Its not about choice, and its not about rights; its about MURDER! And you love it, don’t you? That’s because you suffer from a condition known as; Abortomania: A form of insanity characterized by great excitement and enthusiasm for abortion. Common among abortionmongers and other Abortionites, especially those of the Birthist sect, after the process of abortionthink has run its full course.

  • Jay

    Abortion proponents claim that fetuses are not persons. However, this would make the fetus a human non-person. Does such a creature really exist?

    Who should be in charge of determining which characteristics of personality constitute personhood? In the past, numerous human beings have been defined as non-persons. Should we begin a new list of human beings who aren’t really persons?

    Fetus is Not a Person – Rebuttal
    The lack of certain personality traits would remove from personhood:

    1. Those who are in a coma.

    2. Elderly with degenerative disorders (Alzheimer’s, etc.)

    3. Mentally deficient.

    4. Genetic, Neurological disease, Mental illness.

    Is is okay to consider these human beings as non-persons?

    If one defines personhood on the basis of those who consciously performing personal acts, those who are asleep would be classified as non-persons and could be killed during a nap. If one defines personhood on the basis of those who have a present capacity to perform personal acts, those who are in a coma could be killed at any point during their coma.

    If one defines personhood on the basis of those who have a history of performing personal acts, those who have been in a coma from birth would be classified as non-persons and could be killed at any point after birth.

    If one defines personhood on the basis of those who have a future capacity to perform personal acts, those who are dying would be classified as non-persons and could be killed at any point.

    Human newborns are among the least capable mammals in their ability to perform physically and mentally. Personhood based upon the ability to perform certain personal functions could be used to define newborns as non-persons, rendering them susceptible to possible infanticide.

    Different sides of the abortion debate define the beginning of personhood at different points in development.

    Abortion proponents claim that a fertilized egg is just a single cell – like any other cell of the human body and is only “potential life”. However, this single cell is alive by any biological definition of life and defines the beginning of each new human being. This single cell is unique from both the father’s and mother’s cells, so it cannot be defined as just part of the woman’s body.

    Abortion proponents claim that prior to 20 weeks, the fetal brain is not developed enough so that the fetus can posses an individual human personality, and therefore, the fetus is not a person. There are problems with this definition…Defining personhood on the basis of personality results in several problems. It is impossible to know when a fetus goes from non-person to person status. Of course, personality is a function of the body, and is programmed at least partially by the DNA. Trying to distinguish a separate existence of the mind from the brain results in a kind of mind/body dualism that is not accepted by the vast majority of secular scientists.

    Defining personhood on the basis of brain development results in several problems.

    Brain development is controlled by the DNA, and so, is programmed to occur in a continuous progression of virtually indistinguishable events. There is no point at which the brain suddenly becomes functional. In fact, many aspects of brain development occur after birth. Most aspects of newborn personality do not emerge until weeks to months after birth. Therefore, a definition of personhood on the basis of brain development would allow for infanticide – at least through the first month.

    Defining personhood on the basis of fetal viability outside the womb also has several problems. By this definition, the age of viability is subject to human technology.

    In the United Kingdom, this definition led to the lowering of the age of viability from 28 weeks to 24 weeks in 1990. A recent article in the medical journal Nature, indicated that an artificial womb might lower the age of viability. The authors of the study commented on the possible implications of such technology on the availability of abortion, since the current legal definition of abortion “rights” is based upon “fetal viability.”

    In “Defense of Abortion and Infanticide,” Michael Tooley claims that individuals have a right to life only at the point of self-consciousness and an interest in their own continued existence

    Tooley concludes, therefore, that infanticide is morally acceptable. If the individual will, in the future develop such interest, is it permissible to kill the individual before such interests develop? Can fetuses be excluded from allowing such development to occur?

    Defining personhood on the basis of self-consciousness and an interest in one’s own continued existence allows for infanticide, which is exactly what Michael Tooley argues for. However, most people are unwilling to accept such a definition of personhood, since they are able to see exactly what is being killed when the individual is a newborn. What most people don’t know is that the fetus looks markedly like a newborn, only smaller, after the first three months of gestation.

    • Jay

      The same arguments used to support slavery are now being used to support abortion.

      Pro-abortion advocates are constantly trying to say that it is a personal choice and that it is a religious issue, and that the un-born is not a person. However, arguments used to support abortion “rights” lack logic and are not supported by scientific or ethical examinations of the issues.

      EVERYONE who supported slavery was free.
      EVERYONE who supports abortion was born.

      That’s how oppression works. “They’re not really people” – We’ve heard that before….

  • Reommorkino

    Did You Know; S2R is the text message abbreviation for Send To Receive


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.